DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of the USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), which is a two-prong inquiry. In prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and if so, in prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea in step 2a, it must additionally be determined in step 2b whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. MPEP §2106.04.
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include an apparatus for recommending products, as in independent claim 1 and in the claims that depend therefrom. Such apparatuses fall under the statutory category of “apparatus”. Therefore, claims 1-7 are directed to a statutory eligibility category. Claim 8 is determined to include a method for recommending products. Such methods fall under the statutory category of “process”. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to a statutory eligibility category. Claim 9 s determined to include a system for recommending products. Such systems fall under the statutory category of “apparatus”. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to a statutory eligibility category.
Step 2A, prong 1. The invention is directed to an apparatus for recommending products, which is a sales method and, hence, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“A service providing … for cross-recommendation between product sales … based on …, the service providing … comprising”:
“a collector configured to collect behavior log information according to use of a product sales … of a plurality of users for each of a plurality of different product sales … that is a plurality of different …”;
“an information … configured to”
“group items of log information, in which a user corresponding to behavior log information and a category of a product sales … corresponding to the behavior log are the same, into a log group”,
“calculate a category point corresponding to a log group in accordance with a preset first algorithm for each of a plurality of log groups”, and
“create category identification information for identifying a user, a product sales …, and a category corresponding to a log group and category preference information comprising a category point for each of the plurality of log groups”;
“a matching unit configured to”
“calculate similarity between categories in accordance with a preset second algorithm based on a plurality of items of category preference information created for a plurality of user by the information …”, and
“create matching information in which categories of different product sales sites are matched to each other based on the similarity”; and
“a recommender configured to create and provide recommendation result information comprising a category of a specific product sales … matched to a category of another product sales … that a specific user prefers according to the collected behavior information based on the matching information for a user terminal of the specific user connecting to the specific product sales …”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the Mayo framework, the examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B. Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts.
The instant application includes in claim 1 additional limitations to those deemed to be abstract ideas. When taken individually, these limitations are
“apparatus”;
“sites”;
“online”;
“web sites”; and
“processor”.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
Looking to MPEP §2106.05(d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F,3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir, 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
CONCLUSION. It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
Dependent claims 2-7, which impose additional limitations, also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-7, these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, applicant is invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claim 9 recites “servers”, which is a generic element. Claims 8 and 9 are otherwise similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0062270 A1 (hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 9, Park discloses
“A service providing apparatus for cross-recommendation between product sales sites based on online, the service providing apparatus comprising”: Park, abstract;
“a collector configured to collect behavior log information according to use of a product sales site of a plurality of users for each of a plurality of different product sales sites that is a plurality of different web sites”; Park ¶¶ 0045, 0046 (purchase data relating to multiple users and product sales sites are collected);
“an information processor configured to” Park ¶¶ 0065-0070 (e.g.,
“group items of log information, in which a user corresponding to behavior log information and a category of a product sales site corresponding to the behavior log are the same, into a log group”, Park ¶¶ 0065-0070 (e.g., data relating to beverage purchases are grouped);
“calculate a category point corresponding to a log group in accordance with a preset first algorithm for each of a plurality of log groups”, Park ¶¶ 0065-0070 (e.g., coffee is a category point); and
“create category identification information for identifying a user, a product sales site, and a category corresponding to a log group and category preference information comprising a category point for each of the plurality of log groups”; Park ¶¶ 0073-0075 (matrix of purchase data is constructed using collaborative filtering);
“a matching unit configured to” Park ¶ 0060;
“calculate similarity between categories in accordance with a preset second algorithm based on a plurality of items of category preference information created for a plurality of user by the information processor”, Park ¶¶ 0073-0075 (matching products are selected using cosine similarity); and
“create matching information in which categories of different product sales sites are matched to each other based on the similarity”; Park ¶¶ 0073-0076 (matching products are selected using cosine similarity); and
“a recommender configured to create and provide recommendation result information comprising a category of a specific product sales site matched to a category of another product sales site that a specific user prefers according to the collected behavior information based on the matching information for a user terminal of the specific user connecting to the specific product sales site”. Park ¶¶ 0073-0075, 0078 (matching products are recommended).
With respect to claim 2, Park discloses
“wherein the first algorithm is collaborative filtering”. Park ¶ 0073.
With respect to claim 3, Park discloses
“wherein the behavior log information comprises information about at least one of product search, adding, putting in a cart, and buying by the user”. Park ¶ 0065 (purchase history).
With respect to claim 4, Park discloses
“wherein the second algorithm is a cosine distance, and the matching unit calculates a distance according to the cosine distance between a plurality of different categories according to the plurality of items of preference information, uses the calculated distance as similarity, and creates matching information by matching one or more categories to each of the plurality of different categories in a manner of matching a specific category corresponding to a specific product sales site to one or more categories in which the similarity is highest of a plurality of categories corresponding to another product sales sites”. Park ¶ 0074 (cosine similarity is used).
With respect to claim 5, Park discloses
“wherein the recommender selects a category of another product sales site that the specific user prefers as a preference category in accordance with a preset recommendation algorithm based on one or more items of behavior log information corresponding to the another product sales site and the specific user and creates recommendation result information for recommending a product pertaining to a recommendation category by identifying a category of the specific product sales site matched to the preference category as the recommendation category based on the matching information”. Park ¶ 0069 (e.g., non-coffee beverages of different categories, such as tea or latte can be recommended).
With respect to claim 6, Park discloses
“wherein when receiving connection information of the specific user connecting the specific product sales site from an affiliated store server corresponding to the specific product sales site, the recommender selects one or more interest products, which the specific user prefers, from one or more products that are sold on another product sales site by performing analysis in accordance with a preset recommendation algorithm based on one or more items of behavior log information corresponding to the specific user and the another product sales site; determines one or more recommendation categories based on the one or more interest products in a manner of selecting a category to which the interest products pertain as the preference category from one or more categories set in the another product sales site and then determining a category of the specific product sales site matched to the reference category as a recommendation category based on the matching information; and creates and then transmits recommendation result information comprising the one or more recommendation categories to the affiliated store server such that the affiliated store server selects and recommends a recommendation product to the specific user based on one or more recommendation categories according to the recommendation result information, or creates and transmits product recommendation information including one or more recommendation products to the affiliated store server or a user terminal of the specific user based on the recommendation result information”. Park ¶¶ 0067-0069 (e.g., system determines that user has history of purchasing daily coffee and another drink for a companion on the weekend and recommends such drinks based on product availability at specific coffee shop chosen).
With respect to claim 7, Park discloses
“further comprising a storage unit configured to store product information received from each of the plurality of product sales sites, wherein the recommender checks whether a visit history of the specific user exists based on behavior log information corresponding to the specific user for each of the specific product sales site and another product sales site when receiving the connection information, and when there is a visit history of the specific user on both of the specific product sales site and the another product sales site, the recommender selects a recommendation product for one or more items of product information corresponding to the specific product sales site stored in the storage unit using behavior log information corresponding to the specific product sales site and the specific user, selects a recommendation products in accordance with a preset recommendation product selection reference for each of one or more recommendation categories according to the recommendation result information for one or more items of product information corresponding to the specific product sales site, and creates the product recommendation information including the one or more selected recommendation products; and when there is a visit history on only the another product sales site, the recommender creates product recommendation information comprising only a recommendation product selected in
accordance with the recommendation result information for one or more items of product information corresponding to the specific product sales site”. Park ¶¶ 0065-0070 (system recommends purchases based on actual purchase history and based on similarity to purchase history in other shops).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0334875 A1 (hereinafter “Li”) discloses a product recommendation method. Li, abstract.
U.S. Patent Number 9,818,145 B1 (hereinafter “Finkelstein”) discloses a product recommendation method. Finkelstein, abstract.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0358122 A1 (hereinafter “Tiwary”) discloses a product recommendation method. Tiwary, abstract.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0005437 A1 (hereinafter “Stoppelman”) discloses a product recommendation method. Stoppelman, abstract.
Zhao, Boheng, "Design of e-commerce platform based on collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm", 2022 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics and Computers (IPEC), 10.1109/IPEC54454.2022.9777375 (hereinafter “Zhao”) discloses a product recommendation method. Zhao, page 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ETHAN D. CIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/ETHAN D CIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688